Sign up for our daily briefing
Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.
Stay on top of the latest market trends
Subscribe to Axios Markets for the latest market trends and economic insights. Sign up for free.
Sports news worthy of your time
Binge on the stats and stories that drive the sports world with Axios Sports. Sign up for free.
Tech news worthy of your time
Get our smart take on technology from the Valley and D.C. with Axios Login. Sign up for free.
Get the inside stories
Get an insider's guide to the new White House with Axios Sneak Peek. Sign up for free.
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Want a daily digest of the top Denver news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver
Want a daily digest of the top Des Moines news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines
Want a daily digest of the top Twin Cities news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities
Want a daily digest of the top Tampa Bay news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay
Want a daily digest of the top Charlotte news?
Get a daily digest of the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte
Congressional clerks pass the Electoral College certificate from Ohio at the U.S. Capitol Jan. 4, 2013. The votes were tallied during a joint session of Congress. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The Supreme Court will decide whether states can punish Electoral College members who do not support the winner of their state's popular vote, otherwise known as "faithless electors."
Why it matters: A group of faithless electors could upend an election, and states want to ensure that elections reflect their voters' will.
Where it stands: 32 states and Washington, D.C. require their electors to cast their Electoral College votes for the winner of their respective statewide popular vote, the Washington Post reports.
- In its brief, Washington state wrote that doing away with those laws “would mean that only 538 Americans — members of the Electoral College — have a say in who should be president; everything else is simply advisory.”
The other side: Challengers argue the Constitution does not grant states the ability to modulate electoral votes.
“There is no mechanism for state officials to monitor, control, or dictate electoral votes. ... Instead, the right to vote in the Constitution and federal law is personal to the electors, and it is supervised by the electors themselves.”— Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig and his group Equal Citizens in a brief siding with the electors
The court will likely rule in early summer.
Go deeper: